2nd Amendment "Fraud"

[Boreas]

In an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour in 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger said of the 2nd Amendment that it "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

In a speech the following year he said that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." Its purpose, Burger believed, was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."

So, you see, this idea is far from new.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/b...nt-gun-rights#

John

[Zeke]

Good work.

[icenine]

well regulated militia=national guard?

to be fair the founding fathers could not imagine that 250 years later the average life span of the male would be longer than the active lifespan of the penis, thus not realizing the irrational desire for men to compensate by purchasing civilian versions of the also unforseen automatic musket.....

you think ************************ would be enough

oppps
now i have done it lol

[icenine]

************************ is not allowed? how about ************************?

[icenine]

ok they could not predict erectile dysfunction and the medicines that would come along to prevent it lol
especially Ben Franklin I do not think he had that problem lol

[mpholland]

I think I am going to enjoy this thread...unfortunately I am off to work at the moment. While the story in itself is enough, I am sure there will be plenty more discussion fodder by the time I get home.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I think I am going to enjoy this thread...unfortunately I am off to work at the moment. While the story in itself is enough, I am sure there will be plenty more discussion fodder by the time I get home.

It's certainly off to a god start.

John

[Boreas]

This is what the Constitution has to say about the nature and purpose of the Militia.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This is Article 1, Clauses 15 and 16 of the US Constitution. It was written before the 2nd Amendment so, the Militia and its "regulation" as described here must describe the Militia as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.

John

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

In an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour in 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger said of the 2nd Amendment that it "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

In a speech the following year he said that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." Its purpose, Burger believed, was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."

So, you see, this idea is far from new.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/b...nt-gun-rights#

John

Earl Warren thought much the same; however, that's not the current view of the SC. I'd also argue that the founders also wouldn't think that the states themselves could possibly lose so much power viz-a-viz the federal government. Moreover, how do you interpret "militia" back in the late 18th? It certainly was nothing like our largely federally controlled National Guard of today.

PS. Sanford Levine's 1989 article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" is a good read on the issue. BTW, It does support the anti-gun side.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Earl Warren thought much the same; however, that's not the current view of the SC. I'd also argue that the founders also wouldn't think that the states themselves could possibly lose so much power viz-a-viz the federal government. Moreover, how do you interpret "militia" back in the late 18th? It certainly was nothing like our largely federally controlled National Guard of today.

Um, yeah, it kinda was. See my previous post.

Also see the Militia Acts of 1792.

And don't get me started on this current batch of justices!

John